Clarence Thomas Ruled on Bribery Case While Accepting Vacations

A new report by ProPublica alleges that Supreme Court Justice Clarence accepted luxurious vacations from a top Republican donor. During that time, Thomas ruled on a bribery case.

The Supreme Court unanimously reversed a lower court's conviction of a former Virginia governor in 2016, which has led to similar reversals in other cases involving local and state officials.

Thomas allegedly accepted expensive trips and gifts that were not disclosed, which has prompted experts to question if his actions violate ethics laws.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas voted in a unanimous Supreme Court decision to overturn a bribery conviction against a former Virginia governor in 2016 while allegedly accepting luxurious vacations from a top Republican donor at the same time.

Thomas has faced increasing scrutiny recently after news broke regarding Thomas' wife, Virginia "Ginni" Thomas advocating for overturning the 2020 election results. The public has since called for his resignation, and in September, SCOTUS received its lowest approval rating among Americans according to a Gallup poll.

An April 6 report by the investigative journalism organization ProPublica alleging that Thomas had accepted extravagant trips with Republican donor Harlan Crow has intensified the scrutiny, with many ethics experts now questioning if Thomas acted poorly by accepting the gifts and neglecting to disclose them.

In June 2016, Thomas joined the seven other justices in vacating and remanding a lower court's conviction against former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell. McDonnell was convicted of committing favors for a businessman who allegedly paid him with more than $175,000 worth of gifts, cash and loans, but the Supreme Court ruled that prosecutors had been unable to prove the favors as "official acts" during McDonnell's tenure.

Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas speaks at the Heritage Foundation on October 21, 2021, in Washington, D.C. Thomas is facing scrutiny after allegedly accepting thousands of dollars worth of gifts from a Republican donor. Drew Angerer/Getty

The reversal of McDonnell's conviction has led to similar reversals in other federal cases involving local and state officials, according to the National Association of Attorneys General.

ProPublica's report said that justices are required to publicly report gifts exceeding $415. Exceptions allow a justice to consume food or stay at a private property without paying a lodging fee or disclosing the experience. Thomas and his wife allegedly accepted trips, accommodations, transportation and more from Crow for more than 20 years.

Some of the gifts, like a $20,000 bible that once belonged to abolitionist Frederick Douglass, were disclosed by Thomas but others, such as the vacations and trips on Crow's jet and yacht, were not.

Thomas neglecting to disclose the trips has prompted experts to question if his actions violate ethics laws. The experiences would have exceeded hundreds of thousands of dollars if Thomas had paid for the same level of accommodation himself.

"The McDonnell ruling made it difficult to convict officials of bribery absent some quid pro quo type arrangement. But even if something is not illegal, it may be unethical," former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told Newsweek. "Justices are supposed to disclose these types of gifts and recuse themselves when their impartiality may reasonably be questioned."

Rahmani said that unless a justice is impeached, ethical rules are unlikely to be enforced.

"If Thomas has a potential conflict of interest yet refuses to recuse himself, or if he doesn't make the appropriate financial disclosures, there is no mechanism to disqualify him," Rahmani said. "It's up to Congress to act, which is unlikely given the current makeup of the House."

Despite the scrutiny around ProPublica's revelations, Crow said that neither he nor any other guests accompanying the pair on a trip had questioned Thomas about a court case and that Thomas never discussed cases while on vacation with him.

"The hospitality we have extended to the Thomas's over the years is no different from the hospitality we have extended to our many other dear friends," Crow told ProPublica in a statement.

"We have never asked about a pending or lower court case, and Justice Thomas has never discussed one, and we have never sought to influence Justice Thomas on any legal or political issue," he said.

Newsweek reached out to Clarence Thomas for comment via email and through the Supreme Court's website.